Minimum number of views

Palande, convicted by the Bombay High Court last year for the double murders of two men in 1998, is currently lodged in Taloja central jail in Navi Mumbai. He is facing trial for three other murders, one allegedly committed in an Andheri flat of Delhi resident Arunkumar Tikku, one of a film producer, Karankumar Kakkad, and another of an unidentified person.
While he was lodged in Thane central jail in 2017, Palande had filed an application under RTI on April 20, seeking the “egress and ingress recording of CCTV footage of the Kala Pani yard/main gate’s inside area” between 2 pm and 5 pm of the same day. Palande had claimed in his appeal before the First Appellate Authority, the superintendent of the jail, that an undertrial was given “VVIP facility” by being provided emergency police escort from Thane jail to the Thane civil hospital. He claimed that the undertrial was then taken to JJ hospital by the police escort and was subsequently taken in a private vehicle for a birthday party celebration and returned to the jail only the next day.
After Palande’s RTI did not get a response, he filed an appeal before the PIO on May 22, 2017. When he still did not get a response, he filed an appeal before the SIC on September 21, 2017. Palande had written on his application that “I am withdrawing the RTI in duress as told by senior jailors”.
The commission said it was not satisfied with the response given by the jail authorities and directed that a penalty be paid in monthly installments.

The Konkan bench of Maharashtra State Information Commission has imposed a penalty of Rs 25,000 on the public information officer (PIO) of Thane central jail for “pressuring” a murder undertrial, Vijay Palande, to withdraw an application filed by him
Palande, convicted by the Bombay High Court last year for the double murders of two men in 1998, is currently lodged in Taloja central jail in Navi Mumbai. He is facing trial for three other murders, one allegedly committed in an Andheri flat of Delhi resident Arunkumar Tikku, one of a film producer, Karankumar Kakkad, and another of an unidentified person.
While he was lodged in Thane central jail in 2017, Palande had filed an application under RTI on April 20, seeking the “egress and ingress recording of CCTV footage of the Kala Pani yard/main gate’s inside area” between 2 pm and 5 pm of the same day. Palande had claimed in his appeal before the First Appellate Authority, the superintendent of the jail, that an undertrial was given “VVIP facility” by being provided emergency police escort from Thane jail to the Thane civil hospital. He claimed that the undertrial was then taken to JJ hospital by the police escort and was subsequently taken in a private vehicle for a birthday party celebration and returned to the jail only the next day.
After Palande’s RTI did not get a response, he filed an appeal before the PIO on May 22, 2017. When he still did not get a response, he filed an appeal before the SIC on September 21, 2017. Palande had written on his application that “I am withdrawing the RTI in duress as told by senior jailors”.
The commission said it was not satisfied with the response given by the jail authorities and directed that a penalty be paid in monthly installments.
View full entry

Under Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act, the state information commissioner (SIC) imposed a total fine of Rs 3.5 lakh on 14 government officials who failed to provide information sought under the RTI.
UP information commissioner Hafiz Usman on Friday imposed a penalty on 14 government officials, including the district magistrate of Sambhal and Moradabadchief development officer for not providing information sought under the Right to Information Act.

Challan compulsory in payment of fine
LUCKNOW: Erring public information officers (PIOs) will now submit a 'challan' receipt at the state information commission as proof that they have paid fine for providing delayed or no information to RTI applicants. In case PIO errs again, commission will initiate contempt proceedings against the officer.
Going by the RTI rule book, a fine of Rs 250 per day (till the information is provided and which cannot exceed Rs 25,000) is slapped on the PIO for giving incomplete, incorrect or misleading information. Since UP State Information Commission (UPSIC) gets 90% complaints and very few appeals from applicants, the rate at which the fine is slapped on defaulters is much higher in UP than in any other state information commission.
But the recovery of fine being as low as 1% defeats the purpose of the fine. "PIO will get a receipt from treasury where he deposits the fine and submit it at the commission. Those who fail to do so will get contempt proceedings initiated against them," said information commissioner (IC), UPSIC, Hafiz Usman.
Read More: Challan compulsory in payment of fine - The Times of India

Thane: The Konkan division state information commissioner has slapped a fine of Rs 500 on the public relations officer and public information officer of Thane Municipal Corporation (TMC) for the "hardships" that an applicant had to undergo for obtaining information under the RTI Act.
Read at: Konkan division officer slaps 500 fine on TMC - The Times of India

Hi,
I require a list of fines applicable for traffic offences in Maharashtra.
Time n again people are harassed by traffic cops. Even i am fed up of these corrupt officials demanding extravagant sums of money as bribes..
Most of the time people end up paying much more than they actually should.
Everybody needs to know the exact amount one has to pay as fine for any traffic offence.
Regards

Reported by Timesofindia.indiatimes.com on Sep 9, 2012
Wakf Board denies info, fined - The Times of India
HYDERABAD: Yet another incident in the endless saga of incompetence involving wakf properties, the State Wakf Board may have to shell out as much as Rs 25,000 for having refused to provide information on its properties in Hyderabad and Ranga Reddy district that was demanded through an RTI application filed two years ago.
The application was filed by city based scribe and RTI activist Mirza Ghani Baig on August 17 2010. His questions pertained to number of wakf properties in the two districts, the number of tenants the board has, the revenue generation and its use, selection of tenants, procedure for fixing rents, amount due to the board, and other issues related to the protection and maintenance of wakf properties. The board turned down the request replying that the information sought cannot be furnished under RTI Act. Even after appealing to the first appellant authority in the board, the information was not provided.
The applicant then moved the AP Information Commission which directed the Wakf Board to appear on August 6 this year. The board through its Assistant Public Information Officer informed the commission that information cannot be provided as the request was "not specific" for furnishing under RTI.
The commission reprimanded the board by saying that its stand was not correct and issued a show cause notice in addition to ordering payment of compensation to the appellant. A hearing was scheduled for September 7 for fixing the compensation amount but was adjourned as the board sought more time to present its stand. The applicant Baig said his objective was to bring in public domain the losses the board was incurring as the nominal rents from its properties have not been revised. tnn. "Properties in prime locations like Pathargatti where the rent for commercial space is more than Rs 10,000 are being leased for a few hundred rupees. Near Moazzam Jahi market a national bank which occupies one of the wakf properties is also paying meager rent. Many have even defaulted in payment of nominal rent. If the board gets its act in order this will benefit the community," he claimed.

ePaper Lite - Times of India Publications
TIMES OF INDIA Epaper 28-06-2012
AUDA flayed for deliberately withholding information
Paul John | TNN
Ahmedabad: Many a time basic information that should be provided by a government office to citizens regarding project works housing, civic utilities, income schemes are deliberately withheld for dubious reasons or simply for harassing an RTI applicant. In one such case, the Gujarat information commission, has taken a tough stance against a public authority and has even gone to the extent of imposing a heavy fine if the officer does not give a valid reason for the exceptional delay in parting with information.
Three years ago, applicant Mallika Sarabhai sought details of housing for the economically weaker sections (EWS) in Ahmedabad by Ahmedabad Urban Development authority (AUDA).The information pertained to the Rs 500 crore JNNURM funds that were allotted for the construction of more than 20,000 houses for the poor. Sarabhai also sought details of the different heads under which JNNURM funds had been spent for the year 2009.
Apart from this, the application also sought details of the number of families that were allotted these houses and the time period within which the rest of the houses would be constructed. After the case came before information commissioner Balwant Singh for hearing he said Both officers were aware of the provisions of the RTI Act, and they ensured that the applicant does not get information, Singh said.

I filed an RTI query to TRAI and got a very surprising resp; here are the details:
On the NDNC website, they have mentioned following line: "In case of non-compliance to the Telecom Unsolicited Commercial Communications Regulations, 2007, the Service Provider is also liable to pay an amount by way of financial disincentive, not exceeding Rs.5000/- for first non-compliance of the regulation"
I interpreted the above text (specially, underlined words) as a fine (or penalty) to be paid by the service provider to the victim called party. When I tried to clarify the same with TRAI (via ant RTI query, thanks to this website for help), TRAI replied with one liner "No compensation", without explaining the meaning of their above clause. Neither did they say that the above clause is obsolete.
In RTI reply (against my queries), TRAI said they do not maintain any data regarding how many subscribers have raised complaints for unsolicited calls! You should note that TRAI _does_ maintain (and publish) the data of misc subscribers' complaints and how timely the providers have fixed those complaints!
It seems that something is fishy in this business.

On 18-11-2009 CIC has levied the penalty of Rs. 5000 on a school principal for violation of section 4 (proactive disclosure).
Here is the link to the decision.
http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/SG-18112009-25.pdf
The CIC said it had imposed maximum permissible penalty of Rs. 5000 under the Act.

Fine or Information
if a PIO refuses to provide information what maximum commission can do is impose fine but but RTI applicant will get is only no information.
are there cases where Fine is also imposed and some other direction too is passed to provide information.
What one can do to get information from this trouble some PIO or through other similar way ???

Ministry fined for not disclosing Cola drink ingredients
as reported by STAFF WRITER of PTI New Delhi, Jun 27
What is it about Cola drinks that the Ministry of Food Processing Industries is trying to hide?
Ministry officials are apparently willing to pay the penalty imposed by the Central Information Commission rather than reveal details of the ingredients of cola drinks sold in the country.
One year and seven months have passed since RTI applicant S C Agrawal enquired why ingredients of Cola drinks were not printed on Cola bottles. He has yet to get an answer.
Under the Right to Information Act a person seeking information has to get an answer within one month.
This seemingly deliberate delay angered Central Information Commissioner Deepak Sandhu so much that she imposed the maximum allowable penalty of Rs 25,000 on the Ministry official -- the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO).
fullstory

As reported by Jasneet Bindra at indianexpress.com on Feb 4, 2010
Chandigarh : Public information officers, who are nearing retirement and think that they can escape penalty after superannuation, should think again.
Punjab State Information Commissioner Darbara Singh Kahlon has imposed a fine of Rs 10,000 on a retired Fazilka BDPO for causing delay in furnishing information sought by RTI applicant Vijay Kumar Handa of Fazilka in Ferozepur district.
Incumbent BDPO Puran Chand has been directed to deduct the fine from the retiral benefits of Saroj Rani in two installments and deposit it in the state treasury and present the receipts to the commission.
The SIC has also imposed a penalty of Rs 5,000 each on Social Education and Panchayat Officer (SEPO) Natha Singh and Ganjuana Panchayat Secretary Upinder Kumar.
Directing the block development and panchayat office to pay a compensation of Rs 4,000 to Handa, Kahlon said the amount should be drawn from the panchayat samiti fund.
‘Ensure security to RTI activist’
The state home department has asked the DGP to ensure security to Amritsar-based RTI activist Harjit Singh, said HC Arora, state coordinator of the National Federation of RTI activists. Harjit had alleged in his complaint that he faces threat to his life from certain persons, who illegally owned properties, and he had filed an RTI application for getting information about their ownership.
Source: RTI: Ex-BDPO fined, amount to be deducted from retirement benefits

As reported by Jasneet Bindra at indianexpress.com on Dec 19, 2009
Chandigarh : The little knowledge Punjab officers have of the RTI Act even four years after its implementation can be gauged from the response of the office of Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner (AETC), Amritsar. The AETC office asked an applicant to provide his identity and residence proofs, such as PAN and ration cards, to prove that he was genuine, and also sought to know the reason for seeking information. Irked by the lax attitude, State Information Commissioner Lt Gen P K Grover (retd) asked S S Brar, Financial Commissioner, Taxation, to take cognisance of the lapses, and penalised the PIO.
The SIC said, “The respondent has shown utter disregard for the RTI Act. It is amazing to observe that the officer wanted to check the identity of the applicant, authenticity of his address and the purpose for which information was demanded.”
Applicant Yogesh Mahajan of Pathankot had sought information regarding evasion of excise duty and sales tax on October 23, 2008. After he did not receive a proper response, he filed a complaint with the State Information Commission in July.
The SIC directed the respondent PIO to submit an affidavit, as to why penalty should not be imposed on him for the delay— as the information was provided in parts after about a year— and why compensation should not be awarded to the appellant.
Through an affidavit, Harinder Pal Singh, AETC, Mobile Wing, Amritsar, said they had formed an opinion that the information was sought by the third party because the seeker “has no locus standi to call for the information”. “Moreover, the applicant did not provide any evidence related to his residential status, such as a copy of the PAN card, ration card or any other lawful evidence,” he said, adding that since he was concealing his identity, he may not be eligible for seeking information.
Citing the reason for delay, he said after they found out that he was a genuine applicant, the information was furnished. Giving a reply on the show-cause notice, he said the question of compensation does not arise because “the state representative acted in a bona fide manner and did not cause any loss to the applicant”.
However, the SIC said the PIO reacted after over nine months when a notice was issued by the commission and the overall response was insufficient and lackadaisical. Imposing a fine of Rs 10,000 on Harinder Pal Singh, Lt Gen Grover said the amount should be deducted from his salary in two equal installments. He, however, awarded no compensation to the appellant, as he failed to justify the damage suffered by him.
Source: RTI Act: Official asks reason for seeking info, fined

When an applicant files a plaint under RTI act, the PIO has to provide the information within 30 days.
I want to know what are the consequences for the officer who fail to provide the information within 30 days ?
I understand that the officer will be fined . But is there any concrete procedure to determine this fine amount ? Will this fine be calculated on daily basis ? then how much per day ? is this penalty amount same across all the departments of the goverment ? can the FAA or SIC let go the erring PIO just by reprimanding ? in extreme cases is there a provision in the act for suspension or sentencing an erring PIO ?

As reported at www.hindustantimes.com on 20 May 2009
You want information, right?
So you exercise your democratic due and file an application under the Right to Information (RTI).
And then your question is swallowed by the blank spaces of government registers.
Two Labour Department officers were pulled up by the Central Information Commission (CIC) for precisely one such disappearing act.
Mohammad Farruddin, a trade union leader, had sought information from the Labour Department.
When Farruddin did not get the answer to his query, he approached the CIC, the body constituted to address complaints regarding the RTI.
CIC officials went through the dispatch registers of the office and found the information had been marked as sent.
But Farruddin had clearly not received any information. Where then was the answer?
The solution to this puzzle lay in 13 lines which the CIC officials found left blank in another register.
It was then CIC connected the dots and realised the officials in-charge had been leaving space for backdated entries in the register. “The findings reveal a systematically designed process to ensure backdating of documents,” said Shailesh Gandhi, CIC commissioner. "Such a practice evidences intentional dishonesty on the part of the concerned public officials," said Gandhi, in an order last week.
Farruddin had filed an appeal with the Labour department's appellate authority, which asked the public information officers V.S. Arya and Suhash Chandra, to provide the information.
Farruddin checked with the local post office about mail from the department after the officials told him the information had been sent.
He filed a second appeal with the CIC, which issued a notice to the department's information officers.
Farruddin then received only part of the information sought. Gandhi then decided to conduct an inquiry and made the shocking findings.
“The commission had the opportunity to peruse only some pages of one register from 2007-08 and even within that limited time, it came across thirteen blank lines. It is likely this insidious practice must not be restricted to just one register,” Gandhi observed in his order.
The CIC imposed a fine of Rs 25,000 on each of the two officials and asked the Delhi chief secretary to initiate disciplinary action against them and recover the fine immediately.
Many RTI activists have complained to CIC of not receiving information, despite information officers' claims that they were sent. “In most cases, one has to collect information personally as dispatches from government offices don't reach," said RTI activist S.C. Aggarwal
Source: Two govt officials fined for ?filling in the blanks?- Hindustan Times

Manipur official fined Rs 25000
as reported by OWN CORRESPONDENT, The Telegraph
Imphal, Aug. 22: Manipur information commissioner R.K. Angousana Singh
has imposed a fine of Rs 25,000 on deputy commissioner of Tamenglong
district, Devesh Deval, for failing to furnish information to two
applicants.
In an order issued today, the information commissioner asked Deval to
deposit the amount with the commission office within 15 days. The
deputy commissioner is one of state public information officers.
Angousana also directed the official to provide the information sought
by the applicants within one week from today. He warned that if the
official again failed to providing the information, the commission
would recommend disciplinary action.
The order said if the official failed to provide the information, it
would be presumed that the official was obstructing the process of
furnishing information and appropriate penalty, including
recommendation of disciplinary action under Section 20(2) of the RTI
Act, 2005 may be contemplated against him.
The order was passed after Deval failed to provide information sought
by N.K. Hubibou and David Kamei, the two residents of Eden Hill of
Tamenglong district headquarters. They filed the application to the
state public information office on November 4 last year wanting to
know the names of centrally sponsored schemes being implemented under
the DRDA, money received by the district under Swarna Gramin Suraksha
Yojana and the beneficiaries.
The applicants also sought information about the amount of money
received under Indira Awaz Yojana and the number of beneficiaries
selected. They also wanted know about the total amount of money
allocated to the district under the national rural employment
guarantee scheme in the past three years and the names of villages who
have success stories to tell.
The commissioner directed the deputy commissioner to provide the
information on July 26 this year.
The Telegraph - Calcutta (Kolkata) | Northeast | Manipur official fined Rs 25000

2 officials fined under RTI Act
AS Reported in Times of India, 21 Jun 2008, 0435 hrs IST,TNN
PATNA: The State Information Commission on Friday slapped a fine of Rs 250 per day effective from January 25 this year with the upper limit being Rs 25,000 on the block development officer (BDO) of Marona block in Supaul district. This would be in addition to the fine of Rs 6,000 slapped earlier on the erring BDO, the commission observed.
The BDO had failed to respond to the application of one Kartik Kamat, who had sought certain information from the official under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
The commission fixed July 15 as the next date of hearing and directed the erring official to be present before it that day.
In a separate case of a similar nature, the commission slapped Rs 25,000 on the panchayat secretary of Basopatti panchayat of Madhubani district. One Ramuddar Paswan was the applicant in this case. The case would be taken up for hearing on July 15.
2 officials fined under RTI Act-Patna-Cities-The Times of India

Bureaucrat fined under RTI Act
by OUR CORRESPONDENT , The Telegraph, June 29 , 2008
Imphal, June 28: Ukhrul deputy commissioner Pankaj Kumar Pal was fined Rs 25,000 under the Right to Information Act for failing to furnish information sought from him.
Manipur chief information commissioner R.K. Angousana Singh issued the order today, directing Pal, the state public information officer, to deposit the amount in the government account within 15 days. The commissioner, in his order, said the information officer failed to furnish the required information despite repeated reminders from the commission.
The commissioner on June 13 asked Pal to furnish the information within seven days to R.K. Awungashi, chairman of an Ukhrul district NGO.
The commission also issued a show cause notice on the same date stating that fines should be imposed on him for failing to furnish the information.
The deputy commissioner, however, said he had directed the zonal education commissioner Ukhrul to furnish the required information to the commission.
Awungashi wanted information on the construction of 68 ramps in 58 schools of the district for the Assembly elections held in February last year. The construction cost Rs 1,30,092, provided by the school education department.
Awungashi, the petitioner, in his application dated March 27, 2007 told the information officer that he wanted to inspect the construction of the ramps after getting the relevant information from him.
The commission said the information officer neither rejected the petition, nor gave any response. The petitioner then moved the commission on July 24 last year.
The Telegraph - Calcutta (Kolkata) | Northeast | Bureaucrat fined under RTI Act